Static and dynamic postural control in low-vision and normal-vision
adults

Tomomitsu, Mônica S.V.; Alonso, Angelica Castilho; Morimoto, Eurica; Bobbio, Tatiana G.; Greve, Julia M.D.

doi:10.6061/clinics/2013(04)13

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

CLINICAL SCIENCE • Clinics 68 (4) • Apr 2013 • https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2013(04)13 copy

Static and dynamic postural control in low-vision and normal-vision adults

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

OBJECTIVE:

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of reduced visual information on postural control by comparing low-vision and normal-vision adults in static and dynamic conditions.

METHODS:

Twenty-five low-vision subjects and twenty-five normal sighted adults were evaluated for static and dynamic balance using four protocols: 1) the Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction on Balance on firm and foam surfaces with eyes opened and closed; 2) Unilateral Stance with eyes opened and closed; 3) Tandem Walk; and 4) Step Up/Over.

RESULTS:

The results showed that the low-vision group presented greater body sway compared with the normal vision during balance on a foam surface (p≤0.001), the Unilateral Stance test for both limbs (p≤0.001), and the Tandem Walk test. The low-vision group showed greater step width (p≤0.001) and slower gait speed (p≤0.004). In the Step Up/Over task, low-vision participants were more cautious in stepping up (right p≤0.005 and left p≤0.009) and in executing the movement (p≤0.001).

CONCLUSION:

These findings suggest that visual feedback is crucial for determining balance, especially for dynamic tasks and on foam surfaces. Low-vision individuals had worse postural stability than normal-vision adults in terms of dynamic tests and balance on foam surfaces.

Low Vision; Postural Balance; Motor Control

Variables	Low-vision N (%)	Normal-vision N (%)	p-value
Lifetime falls	23 (92)	12 (48)	0.006
Balance difficulty	9 (36)	0 (0)	0.002
Easily losing balance	8 (32)	0 (0)	0.009
Recent falls	2 (8)	3 (12)	0.63
Stumbling	9 (36)	5 (20)	0.20
Dizziness	0 (0)	0 (0)	1.00
Fractures	2 (8%)	2 (8)	1.00
Other injuries	3 (12%)	2 (8)	0.63

	Eyes open	Eyes closed	p-value
	M (SD)	M (SD)
mCTSIB (degrees/sec)
Firm surface
Low vision	0.24 (0.08)	0.21 (0.09)	0.17
Normal vision	0.23 (0.11)	0.27 (0.27)	0.47
Foam Surface
Low vision	1.25 (0.31)	1.27 (0.32)	0.77
Normal vision	0.62 (0.12)	1.41 (0.30)	<0.001*
US (degrees/sec)
Right leg stance
Low vision	1.80 (0.20)	2.58 (0.97)	0.001*
Normal vision	0.08 (0.20)	2.98 (1.73)	<0.001*
Left leg stance
Low vision	2.07 (0.95)	2.93 (1.73)	0.09
Normal vision	0.80 (0.18)	2.42 (1.73)	<0.001

	Low-vision	Normal-vision	p-value
	M (SD)	M (SD)
Tandem Walk
Step width (cm)	11.0 (3.75)	7.36 (1.18)	≤0.001
Speed (cm/sec)	12.2 (3.33)	16.45 (4.21)	≤0.004
End SV (degrees/sec)	4.5 (1.45)	3.86 (3.21)	0.23
Step up/over
Lift-up index (% weight)
Right leg	37.40 (12.48)	46.32 (8.33)	0.005
Left leg	34.05 (11.72)	41.12 (5.67)	0.009
Movement time (sec)
Right leg	1.89 (0.33)	1.49 (0.18)	<0.001
Left leg	2.01 (0.47)	1.51 (0.35)	<0.001
Impact index (% weight)
Right leg	42.34 (17.22)	44.68 (18.61)	0.64
Left leg	42.63 (20.76)	44.68 (18.61)	0.71

Faculdade de Medicina / USP Rua Dr Ovídio Pires de Campos, 225 - 6 and., 05403-010 São Paulo SP - Brazil, Tel.: (55 11) 2661-6235 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: clinics@hc.fm.usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Tomomitsu MS, Alonso AC and Morimoto E were responsible for data collection and manuscript writing. Bobbio TG was responsible for data analysis and the final correction of the manuscript. D'Andréa Greve JM oriented the work.